Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[mike717]

You forget the considerable contingency of NPO attacking OV.

You can furiously try to exploit an ambiguity or you can discuss. I still hold out hope for the latter. We were allies who were concerned that our ally was going to make an aggressive move that we had expressed our disapproval of. You still act as if this war had no cause at all. It's absurd. So in your mind, you're married to an alliance no matter what actions they may take? Genius. That's a great definition of justice.

If an ally started freezing you out and then declares an offensive war that you've informed them you would not support, you don't think that is grounds for cancellation? Rather you try to assert that we were scheming against NPO? NPO had no choice but to declare war on OV somehow?

I only continue to argue because otherwise the truth will be completely buried. Your accusations are baseless and even the fake basis you claim they have are purely unproven. Those are the facts.

EDIT:

When you've been allies for a while you generally don't bail at the first sight of concern. It takes time for these disparities to become great enough to warrant a cancellation and usually it requires an event. If the exact same series of events had taken place but Sparta were ranked lower as an alliance nobody would be pointing their fingers at us. But because we came out the second strongest alliance, people are reading all sorts of things into a circumstance that plays out frequently.

I could not put a specific date on the matter. As I said, it grows by degrees and it is hard to say at what point the bough breaks... well it's not really, the declaration on OV was clearly where the bough broke.

The fact is, by saying you've been on the "karma" side for months, and seeing as how "karma's" common unifying goal was the removal of the NPO's power structure, that your actions and place in this little issue no matter how this war started were predetermined. And it wasn't just a few of you that have implied so. Please don't insult others intelligence.

[TehChron]

You forget the considerable contingency of NPO attacking OV.

You can furiously try to exploit an ambiguity or you can discuss. I still hold out hope for the latter. We were allies who were concerned that our ally was going to make an aggressive move that we had expressed our disapproval of. You still act as if this war had no cause at all. It's absurd. So in your mind, you're married to an alliance no matter what actions they may take? Genius. That's a great definition of justice.

I only continue to argue because otherwise the truth will be completely buried. Your accusations are baseless and even the fake basis you claim they have are purely unproven. Those are the facts.

Thats irrelevant. As all of Karma has acknowledged, OV was a recent occurrence around which "Karma" coalesced. The fact that you identified with that group even without any kind of specific treaty motivation...As George said "Months before the war", pretty much is an admission that if it hadnt been OV, it would have been someone else you would have sold out the NPO for when the time came.

You havnt provided a single fact that actually rebuts the core issue of your alliance's own hypocrisy. As Grub said, this entire issue isnt about "Justice" its about honesty and hypocrisy. Facts indeed.

[enderland]

Grub, and those supporting his message do not want to see a precedence form of continuing attacks on a defeated alliance as a condition of surrendering.

The other side says that NPO deserves it and that no precedence will be formed, or that NPO already started the precedence with FAN.

There are other sides and plenty of people on the other side who do not believe what they do for the reason you think they do.

First off, if anybody ever does accepts terms or already have accepted terms that include still being attacked, the precedence is set, and it will be considered ok in the future. Any time anybody complains about it, future alliances will just have to point back to this event where several alliances have done the same. Look at how many bad precedences there are out there that NPO did start that still continue to this day? PZI, and EZI are considered horrible, yet there are alliances that still practice one or both of them, even on the karma side (GOD i believe is one).

You should go read the Echelon surrender term thread if you think that precedence will allow alliances to get away with anything. That surrender term compilation has plenty of terms with precedence that are not getting a good reaction from most participants involved in the conflict.

As far as the FAN argument, NPO never offered FAN terms so it is not the same precedence. I believe what was stated was something along the lines of they have to fight the war before we can let them surrender. It's a slight distinction, but one that needs to be made. If karma were to tell NPO that there would be no terms until they fought, it would be the same, but they have asked for other things which may not be able to be met at the conclusion of fighting. And based on the fact that "Karma" has used every precedence that NPO has set regarding surrender terms, it would not surprise me in the least if some of those alliances re engaged with NPO for what most would consider minor infractions.

Are you serious? It's ok for NPO to say "you cannot get peace until you fight this war" with not even a single statement guaranteeing anything regarding peace, but for someone to negotiate a set end to the war is unacceptable?

[enderland]

The fact is, by saying you've been on the "karma" side for months, and seeing as how "karma's" common unifying goal was the removal of the NPO's power structure, that your actions and place in this little issue no matter how this war started were predetermined. And it wasn't just a few of you that have implied so. Please don't insult others intelligence.

Karma's common goal started as going down in flames in a damn hard to swallow pill.

[Drostan]

This is pretty good, man. Well, if you guys want to believe that we alone orchestrated this whole conflict... I don't know how you can rationally put that together but good luck. I think reasonable cases have been made that show that theory to be at best a grand exaggeration and at worst pure fabricated slander.

You can keep the onus on us all you want, but we tried to make the best sense of a messed up situation as did so many other alliances. According to you conspiracy theorists we should have been able to cancel at an earlier more convenient time but from our standpoint not being told of a declaration during peace talks was when we felt sufficiently alienated to justify cancelling.

I don't think our allies feel that we are fickle friends, and that is what most concerns me. If you want to talk about your concerns with Sparta, get in touch with us.

I feel that you are holding Sparta to a ridiculous standard that at present you would expect of nobody else. I think this happened because Grub got flustered and lashed out at GtG and that kicked off a chain-reaction of name-calling and finger-pointing that got us here. If you have concerns about Sparta, come and talk to us. If you just want to insult and spew propaganda I have no doubt that that's what you'll keep doing.

Thats irrelevant. As all of Karma has acknowledged, OV was a recent occurrence around which "Karma" coalesced. The fact that you identified with that group even without any kind of specific treaty motivation...As George said "Months before the war", pretty much is an admission that if it hadnt been OV, it would have been someone else you would have sold out the NPO for when the time came.

Thats irrelevant. As all of Karma has acknowledged, OV was a recent occurrence around which "Karma" coalesced. The fact that you identified with that group even without any kind of specific treaty motivation...As George said "Months before the war", pretty much is an admission that if it hadnt been OV, it would have been someone else you would have sold out the NPO for when the time came.

You havnt provided a single fact that actually rebuts the core issue of your alliance's own hypocrisy. As Grub said, this entire issue isnt about "Justice" its about honesty and hypocrisy. Facts indeed.

Yes, it was inevitable that we'd cancel on NPO if they stopped talking to us and then started declaring wars that we had previously said we would not support. We "sold out" the NPO when they decided that it wasn't important enough to even talk to us before declaring war on someone during peace negotiations after we had said we wouldn't support that war. You don't think that 'betrayal' cuts both ways at all? You've got an axe to grind. I get that. Keep grinding it but it doesn't make it any more true.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Drostan

[hizzy]

When you've been allies for a while you generally don't bail at the first sight of concern. It takes time for these disparities to become great enough to warrant a cancellation and usually it requires an event. If the exact same series of events had taken place but Sparta were ranked lower as an alliance nobody would be pointing their fingers at us. But because we came out the second strongest alliance, people are reading all sorts of things into a circumstance that plays out frequently.

I could not put a specific date on the matter. As I said, it grows by degrees and it is hard to say at what point the bough breaks... well it's not really, the declaration on OV was clearly where the bough broke.

Well naturally it takes a build-up. Nobody goes from best buddy to enemy over 1 incident, no reasonable person would hold you to that sort of standard.

But, what comes across as somewhat out of synch is that since shortly after the noCB war wrapped up, there was a rumour that Sparta and a certain aqua alliance had been planning on moving up in the world. Some time later, the leader of this aqua alliance went underground, but returned afterwards to form a new alliance. On his death bed, this leader stated that he had returned because there were plans in the works that he felt he had to finish.

There really is a lot to the "rumour"... a lot of details that are rather insignificant to this issue... but, after so much time has passed, and having seen that every part of this "rumour" has come true... would it be wrong for me, or for any other chap to consider Sparta's mention in this plot (every detail of which turned out to be true) to be more than a coincidence?

[mike717]

Karma's common goal started as going down in flames in a damn hard to swallow pill.

Sorry,

"karma's" common unifying goal was the removal of the NPO's power structure, or going down in flames trying

Either way it doesnt change much. I highly doubt the goal was to get slaughtered. It may have been to get slaughtered while trying to achieve something thats not very realistic, but the goal isn't ONLY to get slaughtered, and pretending so is kind of silly right?

Edited July 7, 2009 by mike717

[enderland]

Sorry,

"karma's" common unifying goal was the removal of the NPO's power structure, or going down in flames trying

Either way it doesnt change much. I highly doubt the goal was to get slaughtered. It may have been to get slaughtered while trying to achieve something thats not very realistic, but the goal isn't ONLY to get slaughtered, and pretending so is kind of silly right?

Protip - you have literally no idea how events happened. Considering the vast majority of the "original" Karma alliances expected to be destroyed, you are blatantly wrong.

You're frustration and rage would be far better directed at Moo or NPO for attacking in negotiations and strongly aligning a lot of previously undecided alliances with Karma instead of them.

[Kung Fu Geeks]

There are other sides and plenty of people on the other side who do not believe what they do for the reason you think they do.

I'm going off of the general impression i get from what has been said in this thread (well, what was on topic anyway). Of course im sure there are other sides and people that believe such, but for the most part, what has been said in this thread does infact boil down to what i mentioned.

You should go read the Echelon surrender term thread if you think that precedence will allow alliances to get away with anything. That surrender term compilation has plenty of terms with precedence that are not getting a good reaction from most participants involved in the conflict.

I've read parts of it. Yup, i see the outrage. I also saw the outrage when NPO created the precedence of targeting peace mode nations, yet i see it happening today. I saw outrage when alot of precedence where set, and whenever anybody trys to call people out for it, it usually comes back with "Do something about it" and to most people, they do not have the ability to do something about it. I still stand by my point, once a precedence is set, people will do it again, and they will have firmer ground to stand on when they do it.

Are you serious? It's ok for NPO to say "you cannot get peace until you fight this war" with not even a single statement guaranteeing anything regarding peace, but for someone to negotiate a set end to the war is unacceptable?

Did i say its acceptable? I'm pretty sure i said it wasn't the same thing, not that it was acceptable. I actually think that NPOs war on FAN was crap and I'm glad they are finally realizing the consequences of such. I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into my mouth.

[Vol Navy]

Spartans should really get together and try and agree on one version of events before multitudes of them come in with posts blazing. Their spin control is working about as well as waving your arms at a tornado to stop it from spinning.

I still LOL at the "We thought we were going to get stomped." which has now slowly turned into "We thought sides were going to be equal." claims by certain portions of Karma. The bolded portion of Grub's OP below pretty much shows this. TPF had a similar matchup list which is why we were on high alert for fighting a one sided war with us not on the good side for months leading up to this.

Which brings us to the Karma war build up. In the weeks and months leading up to this current conflict I was approached numerous times asking where Polaris would stand, would we fight for X or would we fight for Y. I was shown matchup lists (surprisingly for a side that didn't form until recently I had an almost complete list from a long time ago that looks pretty accurate) and it was explained why it needed to happen and what would happen and would I be a part of the glorious revolution. I spoke to all my allies, including Pacifica, and discussed the ramifications given we held treaties where we did at that stage, Polaris debated at government level and ultimately I made a decision based on what I believed to be in our best interests given our conflicts.

Simple fact is that Q was an overriding treaty. Rather than "plan a defensive war with our allies" or "side with Karma for months" you should have reported to NPO that war was being planned against it and refused to take part in said planning or simply cancelled all your ties to Q/NPO back when you started this planning. Keeping the treaty while you were actively violating it for months is pretty low.

But certain Spartans admitted in the last week or two that they only signed with NPO and Q out of self interest and not for any kind of friendship reasons. So it doesn't surprise me that they plotted against NPO the second it appeared a large enough coalition to take them down popped up. Couldn't be on the side that gets stomped and all that. It would be bad business.

[muffasamini]

Protip - you have literally no idea how events happened. Considering the vast majority of the "original" Karma alliances expected to be destroyed, you are blatantly wrong.

You're frustration and rage would be far better directed at Moo or NPO for attacking in negotiations and strongly aligning a lot of previously undecided alliances with Karma instead of them.

If you think that is the actual reason people on the fence went over to karma, then you have no idea how events happened.

[Ogaden]

I made that image right after you guys turned around and declared war on us. Felt like bringing it out here though when 'friends drift apart' was brought up, made me think of it.

[enderland]

If you think that is the actual reason people on the fence went over to karma, then you have no idea how events happened.

Feel free to enlighten me.

[Drostan]

Well naturally it takes a build-up. Nobody goes from best buddy to enemy over 1 incident, no reasonable person would hold you to that sort of standard.

But, what comes across as somewhat out of synch is that since shortly after the noCB war wrapped up, there was a rumour that Sparta and a certain aqua alliance had been planning on moving up in the world. Some time later, the leader of this aqua alliance went underground, but returned afterwards to form a new alliance. On his death bed, this leader stated that he had returned because there were plans in the works that he felt he had to finish.

There really is a lot to the "rumour"... a lot of details that are rather insignificant to this issue... but, after so much time has passed, and having seen that every part of this "rumour" has come true... would it be wrong for me, or for any other chap to consider Sparta's mention in this plot (every detail of which turned out to be true) to be more than a coincidence?

This sounds like a soap opera. Deathbed confessions and what not. Every 'part' of this 'rumour' has 'come true' eh? Please, let's try to keep the ambiguity to industrial strength at most.

Sparta's mention likely came from people inside Q who knew our relations had been deteriorating and the fact that we were a large alliance bound to be a player in whatever sort of war might emerge. I am sure that other rumours flew around too but we remember this one because Sparta ended up second largest alliance.

I don't mean to take a hostile tone, but you haven't even provided me with anything to refute. Just allusions to some rumour whose various parts have come true in your opinion. I don't know the rumour, I don't know the parts, and I don't know what did or did not come true as you put it.

[TehChron]

I particularly enjoy the fact that the only posts Spartans target are the ones with assailable speculation rather than the ones with undeniable logic and truth behind them.

Or when they do, they throw up straw men liberally then claim to have rebutted the post itself.

Its highly entertaining.

Edit:

I don't mean to take a hostile tone, but you haven't even provided me with anything to refute. Just allusions to some rumour whose various parts have come true in your opinion. I don't know the rumour, I don't know the parts, and I don't know what did or did not come true as you put it.

Two things: If you want a post to respond in an attempt to refute, feel free to take up all the ones where the absurdity of your denials is called out on.

Second: You cant really dismiss a rumor on its contents or lack thereof when you simultaneously admit you dont know the rumor.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Chron

[Vilien]

If you think that is the actual reason people on the fence went over to karma, then you have no idea how events happened.

Really? Were you sitting in those Karma channels? Please, enlighten the ignorant among us.

[Ogaden]

Protip - you have literally no idea how events happened. Considering the vast majority of the "original" Karma alliances expected to be destroyed, you are blatantly wrong.

You're frustration and rage would be far better directed at Moo or NPO for attacking in negotiations and strongly aligning a lot of previously undecided alliances with Karma instead of them.

ender land,

We attacked after diplomacy and negotiations had failed.

There was no other choice, it was that or cave in to the demands that we have no right to defend our sovereignty.

Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl

[Drostan]

I particularly enjoy the fact that the only posts Spartans target are the ones with assailable speculation rather than the ones with undeniable logic and truth behind them.

Or when they do, they throw up straw men liberally then claim to have rebutted the post itself.

Its highly entertaining.

If I could find the logical and undeniable truths you speak of under all the assailable speculation you bury them under, I might be able to address them.

You talk about spin, Navy has quoted the same Grub post in its entirety at least twice...

You ask an impossibility, you ask me to disprove plots that have never been proven to begin with. If you have logs of us plotting, by all means, dump them so that we can stop this pointless bickering.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Drostan

[mike717]

Protip - you have literally no idea how events happened. Considering the vast majority of the "original" Karma alliances expected to be destroyed, you are blatantly wrong.

You're frustration and rage would be far better directed at Moo or NPO for attacking in negotiations and strongly aligning a lot of previously undecided alliances with Karma instead of them.

Protip- I didn't claim to have any insight as to what went down. I also have zero frustration or rage at anything. But to actually make the claim that an entire coalitions "goal" is simply to die, and that there were no other, hopeful, pie in the sky, what if side goals that you may have hoped to accomplish is a bit silly. If the goal was simply to die there were like a million other more efficient ways to choose that. I never ever said the original Karma alliances didn't expect to be destroyed, or were going into this expecting a cakewalk. Please, don't put words in my mouth.

To be blunt, NPO can rot in the gutter for all i care. You should note that there is a significant difference between what peace terms i believe NPO deserves and what peace terms they should get.

Edited July 7, 2009 by mike717

[George the Great]

Well naturally it takes a build-up. Nobody goes from best buddy to enemy over 1 incident, no reasonable person would hold you to that sort of standard.

But, what comes across as somewhat out of synch is that since shortly after the noCB war wrapped up, there was a rumour that Sparta and a certain aqua alliance had been planning on moving up in the world. Some time later, the leader of this aqua alliance went underground, but returned afterwards to form a new alliance. On his death bed, this leader stated that he had returned because there were plans in the works that he felt he had to finish.

There really is a lot to the "rumour"... a lot of details that are rather insignificant to this issue... but, after so much time has passed, and having seen that every part of this "rumour" has come true... would it be wrong for me, or for any other chap to consider Sparta's mention in this plot (every detail of which turned out to be true) to be more than a coincidence?

Rumour about planning on moving up in the world? What? I wasn't very nice to Hoo in his first resignation thread because I thought he was illegitimately stirring crap up. I said something like, "looks like the Grinch stole Christmas," due to the fact that he left after Q saw his Grinch logs (which I don't remember being mentioned in o_O). Sure, I grew to like Hoo after he came back, but how does that prove we were plotting with him to start some aggressive war before? Want to log dump, or something, where you saw us plotting that?

The only "plot" we were involved in was a defensive war being organized and prepared for should anyone from the hegemony initiate a conflict, wasn't it? That also started around the time Hoo came back, so? I don't really remember having much or any contact with Hoo until this war started. I'm pretty sure we admitted we'd be on that side so long as it was a defensive war all ready in this thread, anyway. Why are you bringing up an old point and trying to play with it like it's new? o_O

Should that plot have been aggressive, we wouldn't have been in it... Nor would this war have turned out the way it had.

I particularly enjoy the fact that the only posts Spartans target are the ones with assailable speculation rather than the ones with undeniable logic and truth behind them.

Or when they do, they throw up straw men liberally then claim to have rebutted the post itself.

Its highly entertaining.

If you could restate this "undeniable logic and truth" in a new post, that would be great. I think I missed it. That, or it doesn't exist.

[enderland]

ender land,

We attacked after negotiations had ended, as we have demonstrably shown many, many times.

Uh.

Really?

...

Though, to be fair, after shooting starts, negotiations are normally over. So if you consider you attacking to happen at the same time as negotiations ending, it would make sense to justify it as that since logically it would follow that in the event that two things occur simultaneously, that which is ending is followed by that which is beginning.

[TehChron]

If I could find the logical and undeniable truths you speak of under all the assailable speculation you bury them under, I might be able to address them.

You talk about spin, Navy has quoted the same Grub post in its entirety at least twice...

You ask an impossibility, you ask me to disprove plots that have never been proven to begin with. If you have logs of us plotting, by all means, dump them so that we can stop this pointless bickering.

I dont speculate. I call out hypocrisy and make posts based entirely on logic or whatever I feel like pointing out is flawed about another persons comments.

And like I said in the quoted portion, you guys only attempt rebuttals through obvious straw men. You have yet to give an actual, honest attempt to deny the basis of the OP, rather, we have some kind of bizarre tangent where you all spam or talk about how your betrayal is the NPOs fault regardless of the fact you had been intending to do so for a long time before OV even became an issue. Or about how the NPO is an exception to a moral standard the overwhelming majority of you publicly trumpeted at the beginning of the war.

But like I said, feel free to reply to the points I made in my posts, or others, if you all want some kind of argument to address.

[Ogaden]

Uh.

Really?

...

Though, to be fair, after shooting starts, negotiations are normally over. So if you consider you attacking to happen at the same time as negotiations ending, it would make sense to justify it as that since logically it would follow that in the event that two things occur simultaneously, that which is ending is followed by that which is beginning.

[23:46] <Impero[VE]> rayvon is willing to give the choice to seth on his own

[23:47] <Impero[VE]> to resign and appologise

[23:47] <Impero[VE]> and face ZI

[23:48] <Impero[VE]> <@sethb[OV-DepMoFO]> I will not see OV come to any harm on my behalf

[23:48] <Impero[VE]> ^and seth will do that

[23:54] <Impero[VE]> nevermind, change of plans

[23:54] <Impero[VE]> im sorry.

[23:55] <Impero[VE]> it would happen anyway [23:55] <Impero[VE]> our allies would defend seth as a person

[23:55] <Impero[VE]> no one will have this !@#$ anymore from them

[23:55] <Impero[VE]> im sorry

[23:55] <Impero[VE]> theres no more to discuss

[23:55] <Impero[VE]> the matter should have never been brought up

We attacked after this conversation ended.

This was the end of negotiations, even should sethb agree to the punishments requested of him, VE was going to go to war.

We had already publicly demanded him undergo a ZI, later downgraded to a round of war, and so there was no going back.

It was clever politics on VE's part, they outmaneuvered us, but to blame us for attacking while negotiations were ongoing is incorrect.

Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl

[enderland]

Protip- I didn't claim to have any insight as to what went down. I also have zero frustration or rage at anything. But to actually make the claim that an entire coalitions "goal" is simply to die, and that there were no other, hopeful, pie in the sky, what if side goals that you may have hoped to accomplish is a bit silly. If the goal was simply to die there were like a million other more efficient ways to choose that. I never ever said the original Karma alliances didn't expect to be destroyed, or were going into this expecting a cakewalk. Please, don't put words in my mouth.

You don't claim to have insight? You are telling me (and others that read it) what Karma's goals were - which probably exist more coherently in your made up goals than in any official goal that "Karma" ever had. I am telling you that when the pieces that were to become Karma were coming together there was no "how we going to remove NPO from power" or anything of that nature. It was "we are going to lose, how can we maximize damage in spite of this."

"karma's" common unifying goal was the removal of the NPO's power structure

If you knowingly do not claim to "have insight as to what went down" there are a lot of people here who would appreciate you not making statements similar to the above, which strongly imply that you do somehow know what is in the minds of Karma (when in all honesty they probably didn't have a "unified mind" or whatever to even come up with goals).

[Drostan]

I dont speculate. I call out hypocrisy and make posts based entirely on logic or whatever I feel like pointing out is flawed about another persons comments.

And like I said in the quoted portion, you guys only attempt rebuttals through obvious straw men. You have yet to give an actual, honest attempt to deny the basis of the OP, rather, we have some kind of bizarre tangent where you all spam or talk about how your betrayal is the NPOs fault regardless of the fact you had been intending to do so for a long time before OV even became an issue. Or about how the NPO is an exception to a moral standard the overwhelming majority of you publicly trumpeted at the beginning of the war.

But like I said, feel free to reply to the points I made in my posts, or others, if you all want some kind of argument to address.

So, to summarize your points, you base your posts on whatever you feel like pointing out.

We only ever argue against staw men with assailable speculation and content-less posts.

You invite me to continue aruging with you like I have been.

It seems to me the logical conclusion is that you are admitting that your posts are not of the variety that deserve to be addressed. I am sure this is not what you mean to say but it is, in fact, what you've said.

Aside from discrediting yourself, you've also managed to... er... discredit yourself by following up the first part of your rant with a bunch of assertions and statements with no grounding.

For the record, I believe it was the accusations made by Grub against GtG and Sparta at large that started this 'bizarre tangent' you speak of.

My original opposition to the thread was the grand-standing instead of dealing on a diplomatic level (if truth was the real concern). And emphasizing that the onus is on NPO as they walked out of negotiations last time.

We attacked after this conversation ended.

This was the end of negotiations, even should sethb agree to the punishments requested of him, VE was going to go to war.

We had already publicly demanded him undergo a round of war, and so there was no going back.

It was clever politics on VE's part, they outmaneuvered us, but to blame us for attacking while negotiations were ongoing is incorrect.

That's an understatement. If VE had stated they were going to declare war on you, why would you declare war first on OV? haha. I think you out-maneuvered yourselves. That's assuming that these 15 lines or whatever of logs tell the whole story. I notice the absence of any NPO participation in those logs as well. Why weren't these logs originally posted? Why didn't you inform your allies? Even assuming I credit that these are genuine and representative logs, it was a huge mistake to say the least as the rest of the community could have no way of knowing that you did not just declare war.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Drostan